Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SHEEL NAGU, SUMEET GOEL
Rajesh Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Punjab and Haryana High Court – Respondent
SUMEET GOEL, JUDGE
1. The petition in hand, in essence, assails the selection process and consequential appointment order dated 21.12.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned appointment order’) pertaining to the Haryana Superior Judicial Services for the post of Additional District & Sessions Judgeinsofar as it declares Respondent Nos.5 and 6 as successful candidates while excluding the petitioner from the list of selected appointees.
2. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand is adumbrated, thus:
(i) Aspiring to be a judicial officer, the petitioner applied in response to the advertisement dated 16.7.2015 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘advertisement in question’) issued by the Registrar (Recruitment), Punjab and Haryana High Court (respondent No.2 herein) for appointment to Haryana Superior Judicial Service, by way of direct recruitment, through a competitive examination. The advertisement in question has been issued in terms of Rule 6(1)(c) of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2007 Rules’), relevant whereof reads as under:
“HARYANA GOVERNMENT
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT
Notification
The 10" January,
The court upheld the validity of minimum qualifying marks in judicial appointments, affirming that candidates who do not meet these criteria lack standing to challenge the selection process.
(1) Appointment of District Judges – “No change in the rule midway” dictum has become an integral part of service jurisprudence – If precluding a candidate from appointment is in violation of recruit....
Rule 12(1)(i) of Rules of 2006 prescribes that no person selected for appointment by direct recruitment shall be appointed unless appointing authority is satisfied that he possesses a good moral char....
Introduction of new benchmarks in a selection process is permissible if justified by public interest and does not prejudice candidates.
Public Service Commission - Civil service Examination - Public Service Commission have no power to relax the recruitment norms - Public Service Commission have no power to relax the recruitment norms
The introduction of a minimum marks benchmark in a selection process is permissible if justified by public interest and does not cause prejudice to candidates.
Introduction of new benchmarks in a selection process is permissible if justified by public interest and does not prejudice candidates, despite the general principle against changing rules mid-proces....
(1) Appointment on post of District Judge (Entry Level) – Executive instructions cannot override statutory Rules where method of final selection by combining cumulative grade value obtained in writte....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
